 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
The Soon Coming Judgment Of God Upon America and How To Escape It 346
Bill disclosed to Mike that he had just left the position of director at the clinic where Lisa and the
children were being counseled but that he had never meant them. What Bill failed to disclose
was that the counseling center dealt exclusively with victims of abuse.
Bill further advised Mike that the evaluation would be based on the premise that he was
guilty until proven innocent and that it would be very difficult to prove his innocence. Mike had
about six 1-hour visits with Bill. Bill required Mike to sign numerous releases so Mike could
check his criminal record and check to see if any reports has been filed against him with child
protective services (CPS). Mike was honest and informed Bill that CPS had called him about an
incident with his children. His two year old daughter had told her councilor that he had spanked
her on her privates. Mike explained that he asked his two-year old daughter about the incident
and that she said she had made up the story because she was mad because he had spanked her.
Mike further explained to Bill that he explained to his children that lying was wrong and that
they should only report abuse if it actually happened.
Bill called CPS and told them that he was concerned about Mike interfering with the
relationship between Mike's children and their councilor. Bill told CPS that he thought Mike's
visits with his children should be professionally supervised; CPS agreed.
CPS neglected to follow protocol. They never arranged to have an interview with Mike or
obtain witnesses for interview. CPS contacted Lisa and told her to file a motion with the court to
have Mike's visitation supervised or they would seek a dependency hearing (they would try to
take the kids from her).
The motion was filed and they additionally sought to have Mike's evaluation submitted
into evidence. The evaluation was unfavorable and Tom was able to block the request on the
grounds that it was protected under Doctor client privilege.
Lisa then sought to have the court order Mike to get a psychological evaluation. Mike
fought the motion on the grounds that it was unconstitutional but Tom wouldn't make any
constitutional arguments and so Mike had to draft his own. Tom had previously told Mike that he
would not make any constitutional arguments because Mike had no constitutional rights in
family court. The court appointed a Guardian ad litem (attorney for the children) to make a
recommendation about an evaluation.
Mike petitioned a judge to revise the order of the court commissioner. At the hearing
Tom told Mike that he would have to present his case since the issues involved were
constitutional. The judge denied Mike the opportunity to speak because he had an attorney. Tom
called a recess and asked Mike to dismiss him so Mike could argue his case. Mike dismissed
Tom and the judge accepted the dismissal.
The judge then told Mike, “you see there is no court reporter and the tape machine is
turned off.” What he was saying was that there will be no evidence of what I'm about to do. The
judge denied Mike due process. He denied Mike the opportunity to argue his case while he
allowed Lisa's attorney to make his argument. Mike appealed the ruling to the state appeals court
but they refused to hear the case.
Mike had refused to talk to the Guardian ad litem because case law showed that if he
gave up his fifth amendment rights, his appeal would have no basis. Before the appeals court
made their decision not to hear the case, the Guardian ad litem made a recommendation to the
 |